Going beyond digital libraries: a literature review of phygital user experience research methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates the emerging concept of “phygital” (physical and digital) user experience (UX) research within the context of public and academic libraries. It addresses two central questions: what considerations UX researchers and practitioners should keep in mind when studying phygital user interactions, and to what extent established UX research methods can be applied in these environments. Through a comprehensive literature review of English-language sources from the past decade across library and information science (LIS), human–computer interaction (HCI), and marketing, the authors examine the applicability of established UX research methods to phygital contexts. The study highlights several key considerations for library UX professionals, including the need to adapt methodologies, incorporate accessibility and inclusion frameworks, and navigate organizational challenges. The findings suggest that while existing UX literature offers valuable guidance, interdisciplinary collaboration drawing from fields such as marketing, HCI, and design justice can further support libraries in developing innovative and inclusive phygital user experiences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it